The headline is dramatic. “Former campaign staffer sues Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brenda Siegel for unpaid wages, expenses.” Wow, sounds serious.
Well, it’s not. In fact, the story is so bereft of substance that it makes you wonder how it got published at all.
For starters, the “former campaign staffer,” Bryan Parks, worked for the Siegel campaign for less than a month. The amount of money in question is less than $600.
Six hundred dollars.
Reporter Sarah Mearhoff, who will not be submitting this shitball for any journalism prizes, gives over the first six paragraphs to Parks’ account, his disillusionment with the candidate, his insistence that it’s not about the money, and how he waited until after the election to file his suit “so as not to appear politically motivated.”
And only then, after Parks is given all that space, do we get Siegel’s response: “No, I don’t owe him any money. He is completely paid up.”
Well, there you go, right? Game, set, match, right?
Er, no.
Instead, we get a blow-by-blow account of this nothingburger that, if anything, puts Parks in a worse light. He quit the Siegel campaign on October 3. His first communication about his claim was on October 20 — and he demanded a response within two days.
Which is ridiculous in any context, but even more so when you’re talking about the closing days of a campaign. Candidates and staffers have far too much on their plates to meet such an absurd deadline.
To their credit, the campaign did respond on October 22, offering Parks $250 for one week of work on Siegel’s advance team. Parks got the money on November 3 which, again, is pretty damn timely for an organization under absolute pressure. But he wasn’t happy with the amount or the delay.
On Sunday, the Siegel campaign has sent him a $283 check to cover expenses he incurred on the job. According to Siegel, that’s all Parks was entitled to. Parks sniffs that he hasn’t received it yet. Well, la-di-da. The mail isn’t instantaneous, you know.
Mearhoff gives Parks the opportunity to disparage Siegel’s organizational skill and leadership style. Indeed, she gives Parks far more space than his picayune complaint deserved. After all of that, Siegel is again given the floor to say Parks has been paid everything he owes, and she wondered why Parks is going to court without first approaching the campaign.
Above all that, it’s not even $600 that’s in dispute. It’s $583, and that includes the $283 reimbursement sent by Siegel. So now we’re talking $300. And it’s entirely his word that he’s entitled to the money, which Siegel denies four separate times.
Is there a story here? Really?
Mearhoff gives the knife a big ol’ twist in the last paragraph, which tries to make the point that this minor dispute disqualifies Siegel to be governor. I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.
The position of governor is often equated to the role as CEO of state government, responsible for employing hundreds of state employees. Asked on Tuesday how he feels his pay dispute reflects Siegel’s ability to perform as governor, he said, “I know she wouldn’t be able to.”
The premise of her question is flawed. For one thing, and why do I have to explain this, the governor doesn’t make payroll or write checks. The governor doesn’t scrutinize every expense or personally take care of any disputes. Second, a candidate in the heat of a campaign doesn’t attend to small amounts of money; she has people for that, so she can spend her time being a candidate. Third, we’re talking about a “he said, she said” over a few hundred bucks in the homestretch of a campaign! Good God, a lot of campaign bills don’t get paid that quickly.
It’s okay to report on a small-claims lawsuit against a political campaign, but it’s preposterous to give it more than a few paragraphs. Don’t treat it like a big fat scoop or a disqualifying scandal. It’s not. It’s nothing.
I don’t know why Mearhoff spent so much time and effort on this, and I don’t know why her editors allowed it to be published. It’s stupid, and it’s grossly unfair to Siegel.
The Vermont Political Observer. 
John. Thank you for this. As you know, Anne Galloway poured her heart and soul into getting Digger up and running. Along the way she began to color outside the lines. Now she has lost her place as leader, yet the fact checking, and the nuanced wording of some articles, continues. Where was the managing editor on this one? Brian Harwood
This is lazy click bait journalism. To be honest, calling this article that is giving the author too much credit. Report on facts or STFU. This opinion piece is riddled with slander and offensive reporting. Willing to bet the author wrote this at a titty bar while sipping on a Long Island Iced tea, or at least that’s how the language comes off. Do everyobe a fair and adopt some class next time you go to write an article ya slimy prick.
Hey numbnuts, this is a blog for commentary and analysis, not journalism. Also, considering this sentence, maybe you should learn how to write: “To be honest, calling this article that is giving the author too much credit.”
I don;t call it an article. I’d call it an essay or opinion piece if I had to give it a name, but the real name is blogpost.
Oh, and I’ve never been to a “titty bar” in my life.
Lol you showed your ass big time on this “publication”. Your language makes you come off like a massive grease ball with zero journalistic integrity. You should strive for a job at TMZ, it’s more your style or “reporting”
Again, it’s not “reporting.” It’s observation and analysis. And if you think I shy away from a bad word now and then, you don’t know me very well.
Hopefully this blog that no one cares about validates your petty and sad existence. Loser.
Please visit the customer service desk to collect your refund.
why don’t you post with your real name?
Try reading the “About” page.
Thanks for highlighting this egregiously bad “story” by VTDigger. What’s happened over there? Their once-robust exporting has given way to covering small claims court.
Paul Heintz runs that firm…why are you surprised to find a lack of integrity or even common sense?
A far left leaning blogger is upset because a far left leaning online publication published an article that was critical of a far left leaning politician. I’m sure you’ll be back to attacking Phil Scott’s agenda tomorrow.
The quality of Comments lately leaves a lot to be desired.
Wonderfully written piece John. You should write one on Parks Gofund scam he ran when his dog was”stolen”!
Seriously WTF is with the trolls on this one specific post? Please continue the good work found in your commentary
You’ve been outed to the kooks, John. You know… morons. These impotent, poorly written, steaming pile of one’s and zeroes only serve to boost the posters ego, primarily at how brave they are for pwning a lib. It’s only going to increase over the next few years. Keep up the good oversight and exposition.